COMF I agree that while the war in Iraq may end quickly the war on terror will continue, most likely for generations to come. I didn't mean to suggest that it was going to be peace and security from here on out. Hey I've heard that expression used somewhere before someplace?????

My point is that hatred and terrorism has to stop sometimes. This is a war that has been fought for thousands of years. When do we stop the vicious cycle of war and killing? Do you think these terrorist are going to sit still and not retaliate? It will only be a matter of time one of these crazies gets their hands on a nuclear warhead and take out a major city. Then who gives a F*** who is right or wrong if we are all dead.

I have listened intently to what Bush has to say about Iraq and what his administraion and the UN has said. Though Bush has said over and over that Sadam has weapons of mass destruction, has harbored terrorists and supplied terrorists with weapons of mass destruction that endanger americans the UN has not been able to locate these alledged weapons, not been able to prove production of such weapons and have proved that doccuments provided by the US were indeed forgeries. But given how perrsistant Bush has been that such weapons do exist and that Iraq has ties to the events of 9-11 I decided to spend some time in research and thought in trying to figure out what Bush keeps referring to.

SInce the terrorists were mostly saudi nationals and the money was traced to saudi sources then those are ruled out as coming from Iraq. SO that leaves the four aircraft. Since these were commercial aircraft- not made in Iraq, and there is no indication that Sadam has any interest or control over the manufacturer of the aircraft or the owners of the aircraft I must conclude that these four planes can not be the weapons of mass destruction that Bush keeps referring to that Iraq supplied to terrorists. SO, this leaves just one other item- the box cutters. It must be concluded that when forensics were being done as the investigators dug through the rubble of 9-11 that they indeed found the box cutters used by the terrorists. When these box cutters were looked at closely they found wording stamped on one side that said: "Made in Iraq" On the other side of the box cutters they found inscribed: " Inspected by S. Hussein".

It is truly understandable why Bush would not share this intteligence with the UN or for that matter with the world.

Just outside Bagdad is a small factory and the sign at the factory identifies the building as "Box Cutters R Us". The poor UN insepctors were all the while searching for antrax and missles. Little did they know why they were not finding the weapons of mass destruction that Bush kept speaking of. Each day these poor inspectors unwittlingly walked right by the weapons of mass destruction and the factory where they were made as they went for coffee.

Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of a 1992 policy statement on America's mission in the post-Cold War era. Called the "Defense Planning Guidance," it is an internal set of military guidelines that typically is prepared every few years by the Defense Department. This policy guidance is distributed to military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to provide them with a geopolitical framework for assessing their force level and bugetary needs.

The 46-page classified document circulated for several weeks at senior levels in the Pentagon. But controversy erupted after it was leaked to The New York Times and The Washington Post and the White House ordered then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney to rewrite it.

Key Points/Excerpts:

· The number one objective of U.S. post-Cold War political and military strategy should be preventing the emergence of a rival superpower.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.

"There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

· Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values.

According to the draft document, the U.S. should aim "to address sources of regional conflict and instability in such a way as to promote increasing respect for international law, limit international violence, and encourage the spread of democratic forms of government and open economic systems."

The draft outlines several scenarios in which U.S. interests could be threatened by regional conflict: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."

The draft relies on seven scenarios in potential trouble spots to make its argument -- with the primary case studies being Iraq and North Korea.

· If necessary, the United States must be prepared to take unilateral action.

There is no mention in the draft document of taking collective action through the United Nations.

The document states that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," but it also states the U.S. "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" formed to deal with a particular crisis and which may not outlive the resolution of the crisis.

The document states that what is most important is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and that "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that calls for quick response.